Gemma Therese

Ion,

Don't forget ... change is a sign of growth.

Gemma Therese

Ion

Depends:
changing directions too much doesn't allow time for growth, but allows for superficiality;
keeping consistent directions toward the same positive goals, with persistence in adjusting to smaller changes, allows for growth including developing an integrity against short-term gratifications.

luvluv

Hi all, just got in.

I just wanted to say I don't see the relevance to the fact that free will as such is not in the Bible. There are many doctrines that many Christians have that are not in the Bible and that does not make them somehow unChristian for anyone except Biblical literalists (and only the most extreme of them who claim that EVERYTHING worth knowing is in the Bible).

Speaking personally, I believe that free will is a self-evident deduction from several doctrines of Christianity and the observed facts about the world. Firstly, it is evident throughout the Bible that God is powerful and when He wishes it is capable of determining human action through his own intervention. Secondly, it is obvious in the Bible and in our observation in everyday life that God very rarely does so. A Christian can deduce from those two facts that God must value our freedom to choose our actions, because He is more than capable of taking them away. Even outside of a Christian framework, it would have to be included in the argument that Epicurus was making. Even if free will were not a Christian doctrine, an honest athiest would have to invent it because it is one of the legitimate possibilities of the question. God may be powerful and not good, God may be good and not powerful, or he may be good, powerful, and value our free will. Free will is not logically inconsistent with the question at hand, so an honest questioner would have to admit it's possibility unless he finds some other reason to exclude it.

God over and over again in the Old Testament PLEADS with the people of Isreal to behave a certain way, and he demonstrates sufficient power to make them behave in that way if he so chooses, but he does not. It is therefore a logical inference that God does care about good and evil, that He is powerful enough to force us to be good, but that he does not do it. The only logical deduction if one believes that God exists and is powerful is that He values our free will.

Furthermore, I'd like to propose that the desire to control people without their permission contradicts the Christian virtue of agape (love). None of us here would seek to make any of our loved ones do anything simply by virtue of our power, even if we had good intentions. Since it seems to me that the desire or willingess to force others to do as one wishes solely by virtue of one's power is a contradiction of love, and since Christians believe that God is love, it would be impossible for God to use his power to force Himself upon his creation.

In conclusion:

1) While the the written definition of free will is not spelled out in the Bible, it is definitely implied by God's actions.

2) Were God to not allow us free will it would be a contradiction of the specific Christian virtue of agape, which Jesus Christ said to be the most important virtue of all.

3) The free will argument is a logical consistent position that must be considered in discussing the problem of pain question (even if it were not a Christian doctrine) because it is not self-contradictory.

Ion

I must correct
into:
"...God over and over again in the Old Testament allegedly PLEADS with the people of Israel to behave a certain way, ...".

So I added 'allegedly', because there is no material evidence for this claim.

luvluv

Right Ion but the question at hand is why CHRISTIANS believe in free will. There isn't a particularly good reason for the athiest to believe it, but it is pretty apparent why Christians do: it is the only response to the problem of pain that is consistent with our beliefs and is not self-contradictory.

Ion

I don't know luvluv:
it seems to me that God having allegedly created everything, including man and woman, having allegedly deemed His creation as being very good (Genesis 1.31), there shouldn't be any pain, any negative;
the Bible is filled with pains, and that's a contradiction.

Philosoft

*shrug*

Considering all the truly trivial stuff in there, one might think 'free will' an important enough doctrine to include. Gotta love that wacky God. Always testing us.

<strong> [emphasis mine]

"Self-evident deduction" eh? Sounds fascinating. Got an example in syllogistic form?

<strong> Or that the ancient goatherders simply wrote this with no factual basis.

<strong> Or that he manipulates our minds to make us think he rarely intervenes, all the while puppeteering away. Isn't supernatural thinking fun?

<strong> Or said Christian can "deduce" something that is completely opposite of reality.

<strong> Of course, said "honest atheist" would not be bound to the ridiculous definiton of free will that theism maintains.

<strong> How about, oh I don't know, God's alleged 'plan,' coupled with his 'unchanging nature'?

<strong> Actually, one must believe all sorts of silly things about God in order for this to logically follow.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Gemma Therese

The Bible is filled with pains because man sinned.

Samhain

Hmm...The implications of this statement go far beyond what I think you realize Gemma. I'm assuming you mean the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, yes? Now, eating this fruit is a sin, I'm assuming, as it goes against the will of "God". Now, is this an objective sin? Is "God's" word the only basis that we have for morality, in other words, regarding the Divine Command Theory? Just curious, for, I cannot see the eating of the fruit as a "sin".

Gemma Therese

They ate the fruit to "be like gods".